A Robust Defence of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing

2012 Utilitas  
Philosophers debate over the truth of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, the thesis that there is a morally significant difference between doing harm and merely allowing harm to happen. Deontologists tend to accept this doctrine, whereas consequentialists tend to reject it. A robust defence of this doctrine would require a conceptual distinction between doing and allowing that both matches our ordinary use of the concepts in a wide range of cases and enables a justification for the alleged
more » ... l difference. In this article, I argue not only that a robust defence of this doctrine is available, but also that it is available within a consequentialist framework.
doi:10.1017/s0953820811000380 fatcat:pv6i2uuhjrcwznbero3jly273a